Old growth forests are valuable carbon sinks

Sep 10, 2008

Contrary to 40 years of conventional wisdom, a new analysis to be published Friday in the journal Nature suggests that old growth forests are usually "carbon sinks" - they continue to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and mitigate climate change for centuries.

However, these old growth forests around the world are not protected by international treaties and have been considered of no significance in the national "carbon budgets" as outlined in the Kyoto Protocol. That perspective was largely based on findings of a single study from the late 1960s which had become accepted theory, and scientists now say it needs to be changed.

"Carbon accounting rules for forests should give credit for leaving old growth forest intact," researchers from Oregon State University and several other institutions concluded in their report. "Much of this carbon, even soil carbon, will move back to the atmosphere if these forests are disturbed."

The analysis of 519 different plot studies found that about 15 percent of the forest land in the Northern Hemisphere is unmanaged primary forests with large amounts of old growth, and that rather than being irrelevant to the Earth's carbon budget, they may account for as much as 10 percent of the global net uptake of carbon dioxide.

In forests anywhere between 15 and 800 years of age, the study said, the net carbon balance of the forest and soils is usually positive – meaning they absorb more carbon dioxide than they release.

"If you are concerned about offsetting greenhouse gas emissions and look at old forests from nothing more than a carbon perspective, the best thing to do is leave them alone," said Beverly Law, professor of forest science at OSU and director of the AmeriFlux network, a group of 90 research sites in North and Central America that helps to monitor the current global "budget" of carbon dioxide.

Forests use carbon dioxide as building blocks for organic molecules and store it in woody tissues, but that process is not indefinite. In the 1960s, a study using 10 years worth of data from a single plantation suggested that forests 150 or more years old give off as much carbon as they take up from the atmosphere, and are thus "carbon neutral."

"That's the story that we all learned for decades in ecology classes," Law said. "But it was just based on observations in a single study of one type of forest, and it simply doesn't apply in all cases. The current data now makes it clear that carbon accumulation can continue in forests that are centuries old."

When an old growth forest is harvested, Law said, studies show that there's a new input of carbon to the atmosphere for about 5-20 years, before the growing young trees begin to absorb and sequester more carbon than they give off. The creation of new forests, whether naturally or by humans, is often associated with disturbance to soil and the previous vegetation, resulting in decomposition that exceeds for some period the net primary productivity of re-growth.

Old growth forests, the study said, continue to sequester carbon for many centuries. And when individual trees die due to lightning, insects, fungal attack or other causes, there is generally a second canopy layer waiting in the shade to take over and maintain productivity.

One implication of the study, Law said, is that nations with significant amounts of old forests may find it somewhat easier to offset greenhouse gas emissions if those forests are left intact. It will also be necessary, she said, for land surface models that attempt to define carbon balance to better characterize function of old forests.

Many of the conclusions from the study were based on data acquired from the AmeriFlux and CarboEurope programs, researchers said. Multiple funding sources included the U.S. Department of Energy, CarboEurope, the European Union, and others. Authors were from institutions in the U.S., Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, France and the United Kingdom.

Source: Oregon State University

Explore further: 'Fracking' in the dark: Biological fallout of shale-gas production still largely unknown

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

What geology has to say about global warming

Jul 14, 2014

Last month I gave a public lecture entitled, "When Maine was California," to an audience in a small town in Maine. It drew parallels between California, today, and Maine, 400 million years ago, when similar ...

New study quantifies the effects of climate change in Europe

Jun 25, 2014

If no further action is taken and global temperature increases by 3.5°C, climate damages in the EU could amount to at least €190 billion, a net welfare loss of 1.8% of its current GDP. Several weather-related extremes ...

Recommended for you

Tracking giant kelp from space

9 hours ago

Citizen scientists worldwide are invited to take part in marine ecology research, and they won't have to get their feet wet to do it. The Floating Forests project, an initiative spearheaded by scientists ...

Heavy metals and hydroelectricity

10 hours ago

Hydraulic engineering is increasingly relied on for hydroelectricity generation. However, redirecting stream flow can yield unintended consequences. In the August 2014 issue of GSA Today, Donald Rodbell of ...

What's wiping out the Caribbean corals?

11 hours ago

Here's what we know about white-band disease: It has already killed up to 95 percent of the Caribbean's reef-building elkhorn and staghorn corals, and it's caused by an infectious bacteria that seems to be ...

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TomS
2.7 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2008
Any research which challenges dogma is welcome.
Soylent
1.7 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2008
Any research which challenges dogma is welcome.


Yup, this anti phlogiston dogma is getting pretty tiresome.
GrayMouser
not rated yet Sep 10, 2008
Since old trees grow slower than young trees how can they say there is an advantage of clear cutting the old trees and planting young ones?
murray
5 / 5 (1) Sep 11, 2008
This does not consider select cut logging that only removes large trees, which leaves faster growing trees, most of which are still over 20 years old.
Velanarris
4 / 5 (1) Sep 11, 2008
Well look at cell replenishment. It still would have to use a lot of carbon to replace the dead and dying cells.

Also not growing as fast doesn't mean there isn't more material to create. It just means there is less material to create relative to what already exists in the plant.

Much like how a bigger animal needs more food to sustain itself than a smaller animal in some cases.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2008
If you cut down every 5th or 10th tree each year, then trun the cut down trees to lumber, the carbon is sequestred for decades and room for new trees to grow and absord carbon is created.

Big win for all.
GrayMouser
not rated yet Sep 13, 2008
Also not growing as fast doesn't mean there isn't more material to create. It just means there is less material to create relative to what already exists in the plant.


Two points work against this:
1) The comparison is against what younger trees would absorb so that replacing older trees with younger ones is more efficient.
2) Trees generate CO2 and hydrocarbons at night so older trees would generate more than younger trees to keep themselves alive.

On the other hand, and more importantly, is the fact that I like old growth forests better than younger ones. 8-)
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2008
Also not growing as fast doesn't mean there isn't more material to create. It just means there is less material to create relative to what already exists in the plant.


Two points work against this:
1) The comparison is against what younger trees would absorb so that replacing older trees with younger ones is more efficient.
2) Trees generate CO2 and hydrocarbons at night so older trees would generate more than younger trees to keep themselves alive.

On the other hand, and more importantly, is the fact that I like old growth forests better than younger ones. 8-)


Well also don't forget, younger trees take up less space in comparision so rather than running 1 or 2 large carbon sinks, you can run 5 or 10 smaller ones. I'm no fan of the "protect old growth forrest" silliness. It hurt a lot of people in the pacific northwest.